SRIJAN RESIDENCY LLP

Report
On
NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING
BY
ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST
on
Columns, Slabs & Parapet Walls for “Solus”
(Tower- 4 & 5) at 81/5,Jossore Road,
Kolkata, West Bengal.

Visit on 28th October’2024

 TABLEOFCONTENT
SL. NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................... 2-3

2. TEST PROCEDURE

2.1 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test......................................... 4-7

3. TEST RESULTS & INTERPRETATION

3.1 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test......................................... 8-9

4. CONCLUSION........................................................................... 10-11

ANNEXURE

A. TESTING PHOTOGRAPHS.................................................... 12-14

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction

The newly constructedframe structure of “Srijan Residency LLP”of Projcet“Solus” is constructed

at “81/5, Jossore Road, Kolkata, West Bengal”. Health Assessmentconducted by Adrija Scientific
Instrument Companyon behalf of Pioneer Geomatics Engineering (P) Ltd.to the Columns, Shear
Walls&Slabsat the of the above mentioned projcet using Non-destructive testing, particularly
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) Testing.

Information regarding existing building are as follows:

Category of building: Residential
Type of structure: Frame Structure
Nos. of building tested: 2
Details of floors:12th Floor of Tower-5 & 8th Floor of Tower-4.
Lift: Yes
Design Grade of concrete: M 30
Design Grade of steel: Unknown

This report pertains to the asserted safety appraisal and structural health assessments standards. In
this report description of objectives of the investigation, general methodology and test procedures,
etc. are given, followed by details of the observations recorded at the site.

1.2 Objectives of the overall investigation

The overall objective of the investigation carried out for the structure is to obtain up to date
account of the health condition of the structure so that appropriate repair measures can be taken up
to make up for the damages sustained. Keeping this in view the basic objectives of the
investigation formulated are as given below.
(i). To assess the existing condition of the structural elements.
(ii). To determine the extent of damages (if any) in the structure, so as to undertake suitable
remedial measures for rehabilitation of the structure.

1.3 Scope of work and selection of tests

In-situ tests have been selected based on the visual inspections carried out. The selection of tests
has been done so as to meet the overall objective of the NDT study. After visual inspection, the
various Non- Destructive Tests were carried out as per the scope of work, for health assessment
and structural audit of the RCC framed structure, are as given below:
 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test: As per IS 516 (Part-5 / Section-1) : 2018 for ascertaining
the quality of concrete, soundness and density of concrete.
TESTPROCEDURE
 2.1 ULTRASONICPULSEVELOCITY
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test Method As Per IS 516 (Part-5 / Section-1) : 2018

The Pulse Velocity Test is conducted by the Portable Ultrasonic Non-Destructive Digital
Indicating Tester which are internationally reputed highly accurate pulse time recording system.
The Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity method consists of measuring the time of travel (in micro
seconds) of an ultrasonic pulse passing through the concrete to be tested. Two transducers (54
kHz) are used, one to transmit the pulse and the other to receive the pulse. The distance which
the pulses travel in the concrete (i.e. the path length) is also measured. The pulse velocity is
determined from the relation.

Path length
Pulse Velocity = ---------------
Transit time
Depending upon the arrangement of transducers, the Pulse Velocity tests may be Direct, Semi
Direct or Indirect.

Direct transmission, i.e. placing the transducers on opposite faces is the most accurate method.
However, in many situations two opposite faces of the structural member may not be accessible for
measurements, in such cases, the receiving transducer is also placed on the same face of the
concrete members.

Semi-direct transmission arrangement is used when it is not possible to have direct transmission
(may be due to limited access). It is less sensitive as compared to direct transmission arrangement.
There may be some reduction in the accuracy of path length measurement, still it is found to be
sufficiently accurate. This arrangement is otherwise similar to direct transmission.

Indirect transmission method is used in the present investigation. Accuracy of transit time
measurement is dependent on good acoustic coupling between the transducer face and the
prepared concrete surface. The test surface is prepared by rubbing the concrete surfaces with Steel
brush and cleaned subsequently. Surface probing in general gives lower Pulse velocity than in case
of cross probing and depending on number of parameters, the differences could be of the order of
about 1KM/sec.

Light grease is applied as couplant. Most of the concrete surfaces are sufficiently smooth. Uneven
or rough surfaces, should be smoothened using carborundum stone before placing of transducers.
Alternatively, a smoothing medium such as quick setting epoxy resin or plaster can also be used,
but good adhesion between concrete surface and smoothing medium has to be ensured so that the
pulse is propagated with minimum losses into the concrete.
 Figure: Various Methods of UPV Testing

The natural frequency of transducers should preferable be within the range of 60 to 200 KHz for
high frequency and short path length. Transducers should preferable be within the range of 10 to
40 KHz for low frequency and long path length. Transducers with a frequency of 25 to 100KHz
are useful for most all-round application. Generally lower frequencies allow more depth of
penetration. Higher frequencies allow better resolution in the measurements

The Pulse Velocity method of testing may be applied to the testing of plain, reinforced and pre-
stressed concrete whether it is precast or cast-in-situ. The measurement of Pulse Velocity may
be used to determine;
a) The homogeneity of the concrete.
b) The presence of voids, cracks or other imperfections.
c) Changes in the structure of the concrete which may occur with time
d) The quality of the concrete in relation to the standard requirements
e) The Quality of one element of concrete in relation to another.

General guidelines for quality assessment on condition of concrete adopted in interpreting the
UPV values as per IS 516(Part 5/ Sec 2): 2018, table 1 (Clause 2.5.2, Amendment no.1 November
2019) are as follows.
Velocity Criterion for Concrete Quality Grading [IS 516(Part 5/ Sec 2): 2018]
(Clause 2.5.2, Amendment no.1 November 2019)

Sl. No Pulse velocity by cross Probing (Km/sec) Concrete Quality Grading

FOR CONCRETE (≤ M25)
1 Above 4.5 Excellent
2 3.5 to 4.5 Good
3 Below 3.5 Doubtful
FOR CONCRETE (> M25)
1 Above 4.5 Excellent
2 3.75 to 4.5 Good
3 Below 3.75 Doubtful

Crack Depth Measurement:-

In the BS method, the velocity of two successive UPV readings, where transducers in the first
reading are placed in half the distance used in the second one, was equalized. For both readings,
the transmitter and the oscillator were placed equally from the crack. The following equation was
derived; may be taken as guidelines for assessing the condition of the structure. Any weakness in
the form of cracks, voids, weak concrete will result in lower pulse velocities.

Where, Xi: is the distance between the edge of any of the transducers and the crack centre, and t1
and t2 are the transmit time for both combination respectively.
Influencing factors:-
The velocity of a pulse of ultrasonic energy in concrete is influenced by the stiffness and
mechanical strength of the concrete.
(i). Moisture content: The moisture content of the concrete has a small effect in the velocity and
can increase the pulse velocity by 2%.
(ii). Surface condition: The testing surface should be smooth; any roughness cannot provide
reliable readings because of gap between transducers and testing surface.
(iii). Temperature: Ideal Temperature is between 50C and 300C; Temperature between 300C to
600C can reduce the pulse velocity up to 5%; below freezing temperature results in an
increase the pulse velocity up to 7.5%.

(iv). Stress: When concrete is subjected to a stress which is abnormally high for a quality of
concrete, the pulse velocity may be reduced due to development of micro-cracks.
(v). Reinforcing bars: The velocity measured in reinforced concrete in the vicinity of reinforcing
bars is usually higher than in plain concrete because pulse velocity in steel is 1.2 to 1.9 times
the velocity in plain concrete. Wherever possible, measurements should be made in such a
way that steel does not lie in the travelling path of the pulse.
(vi). Influence of Path Length, Shape of the Concrete Member: As per IS 516 (Part-5 /
Section-1) : 2018 Clause B-1.2 Minimum permissible specimen dimensions are mentioned
as per Transducer frequency and Pulse Velocity in Concrete for Direct method.
TEST RESULTS & INTERPRETATION
 3.2.1 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test results &Interpretation:

ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY: - For ascertaining the quality of concrete, soundness and densityofconcrete.

Project : SOLUS (8th Floor of Tower-4 & 12th Floor of Tower-5)

Date of Report:
28-Oct-2024
Address: 81/5, Jossore Road, Kolkata, West Bengal

Converted

(Km/Sec.)
Time (µs)

Quality of
Concrete
Location

Distance

(M/Sec.)
Position

Velocity

Velocity
Type Of
Method
Of Test

Travel

Direct
Sl No.

Level

Spot

Test

(M)
TOWER - 4
1 1800 mm from bottom Direct 55.2 0.200 3623 3.623 Doubtful
4SW/34
2 2100 mm from bottom Direct 52.0 0.200 3846 3.846 Good
3 2100 mm from bottom Direct 50.0 0.200 4000 4.000 Good
4 4SW/24 1500 mm from bottom Indirect 102.5 0.400 3902 4.402 Good
5 4SW/23 1500 mm from bottom Indirect 85.0 0.400 4706 5.206 Excellent
6 1500 mm from bottom Indirect 105.0 0.400 3810 4.310 Good
4LC/1
7 1500 mm from bottom Indirect 90.0 0.400 4444 4.944 Excellent
8 4SW/19 2000 mm from bottom Indirect 83.0 0.400 4819 5.319 Excellent
Floor

9 4SW/11 2000 mm from bottom Indirect 82.5 0.400 4848 5.348 Excellent
10 4SW/4 1500 mm from bottom Direct 54.5 0.200 3670 3.670 Doubtful
8th

11 4C/4 1350 mm from bottom Direct 48.5 0.200 4124 4.124 Good
Flat-E
Living
12 Centre of the Slab Indirect 73.0 0.300 4110 4.610 Excellent
Room
Slab
Flat-A
13 Centre of the Slab Indirect 69.5 0.300 4317 4.817 Excellent
Slab
Flat-H
14 Centre of the Slab Indirect 61.5 0.300 4878 5.378 Excellent
Slab
TOWER - 5
15 1500 mm from bottom Direct 52.5 0.200 3810 3.810 Good
16 SW/24 1000 mm from bottom Direct 53.0 0.200 3774 3.774 Good
17 500 mm from bottom Direct 53.0 0.200 3774 3.774 Good
12th Floor

18 1700 mm from bottom Direct 54.0 0.200 3704 3.704 Good

19 SW/29 1960 mm from bottom Direct 51.5 0.200 3883 3.883 Good
20 2000 mm from bottom Direct 51.5 0.200 3883 3.883 Good
21 1700 mm from bottom Direct 55.5 0.200 3604 3.604 Doubtful
22 SW/30 1900 mm from bottom Direct 57.2 0.200 3497 3.497 Doubtful
23 1900 mm from bottom Direct 54.5 0.200 3670 3.670 Doubtful

From which it can be said, the quality of concrete is in Doubtful to Excellentas per IS 516 Part 5-
Section-2: 2018.
CONCLUSION
Conclusion:

 The test(s) has performed to know the concrete quality in terms of density and
homogeneity. There is no such indication of honeycombing, air-pockets and voids inside
the concrete structural elements as significant in UPV test data. It has overall in Good
qualities in terms of density and homogeneity.
 The test performed after 28 days of concreting as the full strength has developed.
 Based on above, concrete quality grading has been assessed. This assessment of the quality
of concrete is in terms of homogeneity, internal voids and incidence or absence of internal
flaws with the allowance as permissible as per IS 516 Part 5-Section-2: 2018(Clause 2.5.2,
Amendment no. 1 November 2019), for surface probing.
 The accuracy of Result estimated by this instrument may vary within (+/-) 5% – 20% as per
IS 516 Part 5-Section-2: 2018

N.B.-THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DONE AND PERFORMED ON CONCRETE AT CLIENT’S

RECOMMENDED POSITIONS ONLY AND THE REPORT IS BASED ON THAT PERTICULAR
DATAS.

Following the various codal references and interpretation of NDT results, it is concluded that
the structure is in mix condition as Doubtful to Excellent.

Dr. Bikas Maiti

Managing Director
PhD in Civil Engineering
Chartered Surveyor : Chartered Engineer
Geo-technical Engineer,Planner,MRICS,MIS,DSE,
B.Tech(Civil) M. Tech (S), M. Sc ( ENV), AMIE, FIGS,
MIPHE, MGMI, LBS-I,( KMC & WBSIDC) & NKDA
 ANNEXURE

A. TESTING PHOTOGRAPHS
TESTING PHOTOGRAPHS